Portrait of a detective (1)

[The_Traveler]

I wasn't attempting to make it more painterly but just to get the 'mood' closer to the content.

 

[Derrel]

What's the point to make a painting from it ? I still don't get it.

There's more to artistic expression and to photography than merely the literal, straight out of camera manner of processing an image or a print. Your original pose, actor, and lighting style reminded me very,very much of 1940's-era theatrical images..........I had a strong,strong sense of deja vu, or perhaps better would be a false memory, as if I had actually SEEN THER SAME MAN before...maybe it was an actual memory, and I HAVE seen a photo almost exactly like the one you showed...

Anyway, the interpretation The_Traveler provided is, to me, a sterling example of taking a very strong image, and making it significantly stronger...almost sublime. I guess the "point" is that your original image was indeed very well-done.

I do NOT agree with those suggesting a need for a separation light to make his figure and his hat "Pop!". I think that's a rather cliche way to look at this, as if it were just a "portrait of a man". I see the original as a shot of a man whose face, and eyes, gaze, and mustache, all together created a fascinating picture centered almost totally around the FACE and the gaze out of the frame....the important aspects are not his body, and not his hat. There's no need for a separation light; the background is already very subtly lighted. A separation light or rim light would look gauche, and cliche, and would work against the entire concept. But as to the final processing; I preferred The_Traveler's rendering to yours. If that bothers you, so be it, no harm and no offense taken on my part, but I think the image you provided has a very painterly quality to it, and the yellowing of the image provides a better, more appealing color tone to me. I thought your original white balance and color palette were not quite as appealing as the warmer, more-yellowish look.

 

[Braineack]

I like it completely as it. I was just suggesting I'd like to see it done Film Noir with a stronger rim light. I think what he has now it about perfect to the attention is on the face with enough separation to see the hat, knuckles, but still be clouded in mystery.

 

[The_Traveler]

What suggested that rendering for me was that the color and look of the picture wasn't coherent with the content. It immediately struck me that he looked too bright and pink and rosy and that part of the Meaning-Mood-Mystery triad was off.
The processing needed to complement the content.

 

[bingbang]

@Derrel : thanks Derrel for taking the time to write this comment. There is food for thought there, at least for me, and this is rare enough to be emphasized.

So speaking about the second part (the attention on the face), I am glad that you present it this way, as I had the (may be totally wrong) feeling that saying this myself would have been seen as a defensive attitude, though it look so obvious to me from the picture.

About the first part and the painting variations, no offense of course, that's not important to me to consider that you prefer it. What is important for me is trying to figure out why I do not like it, and I should be able to put words on that to explain it. So here it is, in two parts :

(i) when I processed the picture, I started with a more yellowish palette and I stepped back. I did so because I had the feeling that it was too much, in the sense that it made the processing was taking over the picture. You would see the processing first and the picture afterwards, basically. And that's the precise feeling I have about the Traveler processing, which is going much much further than what I did initially. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that processing heavily a picture is bad per se (I do that sometimes as well), but just that the processing should serve the picture and not be the master. So if you see things that way, the "painting variation" suffers from this inherent drawback to my eyes. It is really too obvious that the processing is taking over. It stroke me when braineack said "It looks like a Rembrandt". This is precisely what you would expect as a reaction when the processing is taking over to such a point that you even forget about the content of the picture behind it (that does not look like a Rembrandt at all to me).

(ii) when you said that it looked like a book jacket, it is another reason that confirmed that I do not like the processing, for more personal reasons. Because if it looks like a book jacket, then it is like if you want to mimic a book jacket, i.e. you copy a style to the point that the photography is not anymore a photography but becomes a book jacket. So basically you mimic, but you fail to transpose. And I do not like the idea that I would make a photography that could be mistakenly be confounded with a book jacket that would be a drawing. Not because I don't like book jackets or drawings, but because I believe that there is no point of making a picture that would be so similar to a drawing; there would be no point at all for taking a picture if this would be the goal : just make the drawing instead.

Too bad that amolitor won't probably read this, as I am sure he would find this discussion interesting (even if he would not necessarily agree with me)

BTW, I had the same sensation of "deja vu" too, and I make the connection with a drawing by E. Jacobs in the "Blake and Mortimer" comics (I don't know if this is popular in US). I cannot find it right now but I am pretty sure that you could find something close to it.

@braineack : I understand, but as I said previously, there are always things that you might say you would have rather done this way or that way starting from any image that anyone would present. And I a am not even making the difference between images that are good or not. Even with very good images (and I do no pretend that mine belongs to this category) there is always someone that would suggest this could have been done another way. This is imho what differentiates what you see from what you would like to see.

 

[bingbang]

I forgot an interesting point which is exactly the symmetry of this discussion. Some times ago, a friend of mine show to me a drawing made by a girl. This drawing (a landscape) was technically designed to be like a photography. This was amazing, as you would be really unable to see the difference. He was impressed technically and artistically speaking, by considering this as the top of the top for a drawing. I was just impressed technically speaking, because I consider this as a big failure from an artistic viewpoint. A real nonsense. A drawing must be much more than a copy of a photography, or there is no point for it. Just keep the photography.

 

[The_Traveler]

I forgot an interesting point which is exactly the symmetry of this. Some times ago, a friend of mine show to me a drawing made by a girl. This drawing (a landscape) was technically designed to be like a photography. This was amazing, as you would be really unable to see the difference. He was impressed technically and artistically speaking, by considering this as the top pf the top. I was just impressed technically speaking, because I consider this as a big failure from an artistic viewpoint. A real nonsense. A drawing must be much more than a copy of a photography, or there is no point for it.

Well then shouldn't a photograph be more than just a perfect rendering of what you see with your eyes?

 

[Austin Greene]

I was just impressed technically speaking, because I consider this as a big failure from an artistic viewpoint. A real nonsense. A drawing must be much more than a copy of a photography, or there is no point for it. Just keep the photography.

This is the same debate photography faced in its very early days, just after it was popularized. For almost a century no one would consider photography a true form of art, often calling it a tool of "lazy artists." For a long time, trying to publish a photo was artistic suicide.

IMO, whether you are drawing, painting, taking a photo, vomiting onto canvas, spray painting a well, or otherwise, the goal is to create an image, regardless of medium or technical approach.

 

[bingbang]

@TheTravaler : no, a phoography should not be an exact rendering of what you see, but this does not oppose at all what I am saying
@Togalive : yes, you can create art with anything, but this is another debate and that was not what I explained here.

 

[jenko]

This one feels stronger to me than the other you posted. There is depth in his expression, something mysterious that transcends characterization and touches upon his humanity.